DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on January 28, 2026. As directed by the amendment, Claims 1, 2, and 10-12 have been amended. Claims 14-20 are new claims. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Regarding the Office Action mailed July 28, 2025:
Applicant has resolved all objections to the drawings. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant has resolved all objections to the specification. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant has resolved all objections to the claims. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art Kim, Applicant argues a number of things regarding the structure of the claimed invention, including the temporal portion be a separate component, the filtration elements being part of the temporal portion, and the air ducts be a separate conduit. Applicant also questions the capability of Kim producing a high-pressure zone and believes the user of the device of Kim would inhale a mixture of both purified and contaminated air due to the structure of Kim and that the claimed invention avoids that issue due to its structural differences (Remarks: Pages 9-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., temporal portion being a separate component, filtration elements only being present in the temporal portion, an air duct separate and protrudes from the temporal part) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently, Claim 1 does not specify that the temporal portion is a separate component or that the temporal portion has a specific shape or structure distinct from the temple or other components. Claim 1 also does not specify the positioning of filtration elements within the device itself in which these elements are only found in the temporal portion. Claim 1 further does not specify further details of the structure of the air ducts and the conduits being a separate and protruding component from the temporal part. It is suggested that Applicant amends the claims to reflect these structural distinctions in order to make the claim more distinct from the prior art. Currently, by broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 1 and its dependents are still anticipated or made obvious by Kim.
Regarding Kim’s functionality, in response to applicant's argument that Kim is unable to produce a high-pressure zone and the user of Kim would inhale purified and contaminated air, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is noted that Claim 1 doesn’t actually claim the production of a high-pressure zone or any limitations tied with the intended use of the claimed device. Despite this, Kim is fully capable of producing the high-pressure zone due to meeting the structural limitations of Claim 1. Kim shows the air vents 110 oriented towards each other which would produce the high-pressure zone that Applicant is intending. Applicant has not specified and claimed how “high” of a pressure this zone should be. Additionally, even though Kim does not explicitly teach the device being used to prevent contaminated air from entering the inhalation zone, the structural details of Kim imply that the active blowing of purified air through air vents 110 would prevent or push contaminated air away from the equivalent inhalation zone of Kim. There is nothing in Kim that indicates that the contaminated air would be inhaled by the user. Furthermore, Kim’s emphasis on avoiding dust and polluted air imply that Kim has no intention for the user to inhale contaminated air (Kim: paragraphs 0003-0005). Applicant has not provided any explicit evidence that Kim’s device would be incapable of producing the same effects as the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2019/0353933 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a personal respiratory system protection device made in the form of glasses (apparatus of Fig 1; apparatus is in the form of glasses, Fig 1; glasses having an air purification function, Abstract) with a frame (100 and 300, Fig 1) having a frontal portion (100, Fig 1), temporal portions (portions of 300 closest to 100, Figs 1-2) abutting the frontal portion on both sides and temples (portions of 300 furthest away from 100, Figs 1-2) attached to the temporal portions, wherein each temporal portion comprises an intake fan (500, Fig 2; at least one blower fan mounted inside the airflow path of 300, paragraph 0025) with an air filter (400, Fig 2; at least one HEPA filter 400 mounted inside the airflow path of the corresponding 300, paragraph 0025) and a discharge air duct (airflow path inside 300 and 100, paragraph 0025), wherein the air duct is made in such a way that it outgoes from the temporal portion of the frame and extends at a bottom of the frontal portion (airflow paths of 300 configured to communicate with airflow paths of 100, paragraph 0025; 110 shown to be the ends of these airflow paths that are at bottom of 100, Fig 1), so that nozzles of both of the air ducts (110, Fig 1) are oriented towards one another (110 on both left and right sides of 100 are shown to be oriented towards each other, Fig 1), forming substantially counter-directed streams of air directly under nostrils of a user, when the device is in use (110 shown to have counter-directed streams of air directly under the nostrils of the user, Fig 1; 110 formed in sides of 100 facing nose and mouth of user, paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim discloses a battery (600, Fig 2) placed in the temporal portion of the frame serves as a power supply source for the fan (600 mounted inside airflow path of 300, supplies power to drive motor 510, 510 rotates 500, paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses the air duct extending at the bottom part of the frontal portion of the frame is located inside the frontal portion of the frame (a pair of glass frames 100 into which glass lenses are mounted, inside which airflow paths are formed, paragraph 0025; airflow paths are shown to be inside of 100, Fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0353933 A1) in view of Hockaday et al. (WO 2004034127 A2).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Kim fails to disclose the air filter is made of electret material.
However, Hockaday, of the same field of endeavor, teaches an eyewear (Abstract) including the air filter is made of electret material (google air vent insert with electret filter, Page 8, bottom portion and Page 9, top portion) since these are known air filters used for many years to remove airborne dust particles (Page 6, bottom portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize electret filters, as taught by Hockaday, since these are known air filters used for many years to remove airborne dust particles (Hockaday: Page 6, bottom portion). These filters are known to remove dust particles in the air and would be useful to provide clean air to the user by filtering and blocking out dust particles.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Kim fails to disclose the air filter is made as a multilayer structure, wherein at least one layer of the said multi-layer structure is made of electret material or activated carbon material.
However, Hockaday, of the same field of endeavor, teaches an eyewear (Abstract) including the air filter is made as a multilayer structure, wherein at least one layer of the said multi-layer structure is made of electret material (google air vent insert with electret filter, Page 8, bottom portion and Page 9, top portion; filter insert with high conductivity interior material baffle 2 or screen 9, filter inserts 1 and 5 formed as two components or snapped together with ratchets to clamp electret filter 4 and adjacent non-electret filter, Page 9) since these are known air filters used for many years to remove airborne dust particles (Page 6, bottom portion) and since it is known to have a multi-layer filter (Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize multi-layer filters with an electret filter inside, as taught by Hockaday, since these are known air filters used for many years to remove airborne dust particles (Hockaday: Page 6, bottom portion) and since it is known to have a multi-layer filter (Hockaday: Fig 1). These filters are known to remove dust particles in the air and would be useful to provide clean air to the user by filtering and blocking out dust particles. Additionally, having multiple layers of filters allows the device to address various forms of particles or pollutants in the air.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0353933 A1) in view of Liu (US 2018/0200544 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Kim fails to disclose the air filter is made of activated carbon material.
However, Liu, of the same field of endeavor, teaches breathing glasses with left and right filters (Abstract) including the air filter is made of activated carbon material (bottom activated carbon odor filter layer, paragraph 0011; composite filter layer comprises a bottom active carbon odor filter layer, paragraph 0037) to remove odors and filter the air (paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a filter made of activated carbon material, as taught by Liu, to remove odors and filter the air (Liu: paragraph 0037). Activated carbon is a known filter material used for removing odors in the air. This is particularly important when the air streams are blowing into the user’s nose.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Kim fails to disclose the air filter is made as a multilayer structure, wherein at least one layer of the said multi-layer structure is made of activated carbon material.
However, Liu, of the same field of endeavor, teaches breathing glasses with left and right filters (Abstract) including the air filter the air filter is made as a multilayer structure, wherein at least one layer of the said multi-layer structure is made of electret material or activated carbon material (composite filter layer comprises mesh coarse filter layer 41, intermediate layer ultrafine filter layer 42 and a bottom active carbon odor filter layer 43, paragraph 0037) to remove odors and filter the air (paragraph 0037) and since it is known to have a multi-layer filter (Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize multi-layer filters with an activated carbon filter inside, as taught by Liu, to remove odors and filter the air (Liu: paragraph 0037) and since it is known to have a multi-layer filter (Liu: Fig 2). Activated carbon is a known filter material used for removing odors in the air. This is particularly important when the air streams are blowing into the user’s nose. Additionally, having multiple layers of filters allows the device to address various forms of particles or pollutants in the air.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Kim fails to disclose a battery placed in the temple serves as a power supply source for the fan.
However, Liu, of the same field of endeavor, teaches breathing glasses with left and right filters (Abstract) including a battery placed in the temple serves as a power supply source for the fan (a dual-channel variable-frequency turbofan 13, a miniature motor 17, a drive mechanism and a battery 14, paragraph 0033; 14 located at end near user’s ear, Figs 3 and 10) since this is a known location that the battery can be placed on the glasses or eyewear.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the battery to be further away from the frontal portion of the glasses, as taught by Liu, since this is a known location that the battery can be placed on the glasses or eyewear. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of relocating the battery to other parts of the temple as an obvious rearrangement of parts and design choice. Doing so would not affect the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04, Section VI, subsection C.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0353933 A1) in view of Jewell (US 6,409,338 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Kim also discloses the use of a wired jack 710 for connection to a wired speaker (paragraph 0040). Kim fails to disclose an autonomous portable battery provided with wire-based connection to the fan serves as a power supply source for the fan.
However, Jewell, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a sunglasses unit with an airflow unit (Abstract) including an autonomous portable battery provided with wire-based connection to the fan serves as a power supply source for the fan (electronic audio device 116, Fig 1; device receives power from batteries 110, 110 are positioned in power source fixture 112 which is integrated into 116, fan controller 118 provided including typical on-off and fan speed controls, 120 carries both electric power for fan 88 and electronic audio signal for earphones, Column 7, Lines 4-14) since this is a known arrangement to have batteries connected to the device via an outside wired connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a portable battery separate from the device that is connected via wire, as taught by Jewell, since this is a known arrangement to have batteries connected to the device via an outside wired connection. This addition would allow replacement of batteries without having to take off the glasses or without having to disassemble the glasses. Additionally, it would allow for larger batteries that would increase the device’s operation time. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of relocating the battery to be a wired connection from the rest of the device as an obvious rearrangement of parts and design choice. Doing so would not affect the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04, Section VI, subsection C.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0353933 A1) in view of Manne (US 2003/0188743 A1) and Roth (US 8,733,356 B1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Kim fails to disclose an ultraviolet light-emitting diode installed downstream of the stream of air produced by the fan.
However, Manne, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a device for creating a curtain of air (Abstract) including an ultraviolet source installed downstream of the stream of air produced by the fan (an air conditioning device such as radiation generator 34 is mounted on flexible tubing 22 to generate radiation beam in conjunction with the curtain of air, generator 34 is preferably a UV radiation generator, paragraph 0036) to condition or treat the air before it exits (paragraph 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a UV source along the airflow path, as taught by Manne, to condition or treat the air before it exits (Manne: paragraph 0036). This addition would further sterilize the air to enhance the device’s filtering capabilities.
Kim-Manne combination fails to teach an ultraviolet light-emitting diode.
However, Roth, reasonably pertinent to the sterilization of air, teaches a support for sanitizing breathable air (Abstract) including the use of ultraviolet light-emitting diodes (Column 1, Lines 54-63) since these are known forms of ultraviolet sources used for air sterilization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize ultraviolet LEDs, as taught by Roth, since these are known forms of ultraviolet sources used for air sterilization.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0353933 A1) in view of Porsche (US 4,834,523 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Kim fails to disclose the temples are attached to the corresponding temporal portion of the frame by means of hinged joints.
However, Porsche, of the same field of endeavor, teaches eyeglasses (Abstract) including the temples are attached to the corresponding temporal portion of the frame by means of hinged joints (70 and 72 are attached by hinge 74, Fig 3; 70 hingedly connected to ear-engaging members 72 with hinge arrangements, Column 5, Lines 57-60) to allow the eyeglasses to be collapsible (Column 2, Lines 12-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ear-engaging members or the portions of 300 furthest away from 100 of Kim to have hinged joints, as taught by Porsche, to allow the eyeglasses to be collapsible (Column 2, Lines 12-15). This would help the glasses to be more portable for easier storage. This helps Kim’s intentions of having the glasses be convenient to store and use (Kim: paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim discloses the claimed invention of Claim 1. Kim fails to disclose the frame is made so that it is possible to install interchangeable lenses in the frame.
However, Porsche, of the same field of endeavor, teaches eyeglasses (Abstract) including the frame is made so that it is possible to install interchangeable lenses in the frame (16 constructed from material that imparts spring-like quality, convenient feature to aid wearer in exchanging lenses of eyeglasses, Column 3, Lines 52-59; each frame half-portion has three hook-like projections or mounting tabs for engaging, orientating, and retaining its mating lens member, Column 4, Lines 25-31) to allow for lenses of different advantages and allow for exchange of different lenses in the case of out-of-date prescriptions, lens damage, and/or frame damage (Column 1, Lines 9-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lenses to be interchangeable, as taught by Porsche, to allow for lenses of different advantages and allow for exchange of different lenses in the case of out-of-date prescriptions, lens damage, and/or frame damage (Porsche: Column 1, Lines 9-20). This provides further versatility to the glasses as it is capable of being used by various users for various eye conditions or environmental conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2, 11, and 14-20 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are similar to the reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in the previous Office Action mailed July 28, 2025.
Claim 14 contains allowable subject matter due to Claim 14 containing the allowable subject matter of Claim 2 and the claim limitations of Claim 1. Claim 18 contains allowable subject matter due to Claim 18 containing the allowable subject matter of Claim 11 and the claim limitations of Claim 1. Claims 15-17, 19, and 20 contain allowable subject matter due to their dependencies on Claims 14 and 18.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN T KHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785